Monday, November 05, 2012

PLEASE VOTE! THIS IS AMAZING! AND EVEN MORE GOOD THINGS ARE ON THE WAY!

PLEASE don't forget to VOTE on Tuesday. It is your right and privilege as an American Citizen. 

WOMEN must come out and vote tomorrow. Obama is your only choice and the BEST choice.

President Obama PASSED THE EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN ACT - after Republicans stopped it for years. 

And remember: Two women were chosen by President Obama to serve on the Supreme Court: Kagan and Sotomayor, the first female Hispanic Supreme Court Justice

President Obama has stopped credit card companies from illegal fee hikes, protected the Consumer int the most comprehensive CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT in history. He got heal care for over 4 million underprivileged children and He stopped predatory lenders. He has been moving this country forward. He's rescued our economy from the brink of collapse. He's passed health reform and ended the war in Iraq. He's fought to help women get equal pay for equal work, make sure students can afford college, ensure that our seniors can retire with dignity, and that our veterans can get the benefits they have earned. 

I wonder why Obama didn't tout his amazing accomplishments?

Check them out here: 


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
 



Mitt Romney is a curious fellow. He does not tell the truth at all. He has no integrity. I'm sorry but this is a fact. 

Mitt Romney has promised to:

Puts bosses in charge of whether women can get birth control included in their medical insurance
Overturn the right to have an abortion in first 8 weeks: Roe v. Wade
Overturn Affordable Health Care
Overturn PBS
Overturn Women's Health Care
Let Banks take over home foreclosures so homeowners can "rent" their homes back from the banks. 

Below are photos from several Charity events I did from 2011-2012, not including my speaking engagement at Texas A&M to speak on domestic violence.  

Firefighters and Red Cross * Solvang Lenny Marshman's Firefighters Fund
Millena Gay, Lydia Cornell, Ivana Franks, Robert Hays, Patrika D'Arbo
PROJECT USA "Jeff Franklin's Mermaid Party" 2011
Lydia Cornell and Amanda Rhigetti at Cats Dancing on Jupiter Premiere 



Add caption








Lydia Cornell, Robert Hays for Firefighters Fund at Solvang
The Venetian 

The Gang at Lucky Strike Lanes for L.A. Team Mentoring

Cats Dancing on Jupiter premiere at Arclight
Brenda Epperson, Melissa Biggs, Lydia Cornell * Community Coaching Center for Autism 






Lydia Cornell, 2012, Griffith Park Planetarium

My new wax boyfriend * Celebrity Waiters Luncheon for Muscular Dystrophy * Coronado Island
Carmel Vagabond Inn * The Divorce trip 

PBS Think Tank for Di Palma Forum 

Lydia Cornell, Greg Louganis Chartiy event 2011


Variety Power of Comedy for Noreen Fraser Foundation

Lydia Cornell, Garry Marshall at Project USA

Oscars Kodak Theater for LA Team Mentoring

Lydia Cornell, ACME COMEDY THEATER

Suzan Hughes, Lydia Cornell on the KISS TOUR


Linday, Steve Kaufman, Lydia Cornell Mrs. USA

Lydia Cornell, Michael Levy

Lydia Cornell, Jim Bullock at the Hollywood Film Festival

Lydia Cornell, Stacy Di Saia, Pageant of the Masters, Laguna Niguel

Lydia Cornell, Tina Ketchie, creator of the healthy "Go-Free Pants"

Greg Proops, Michael Imperioli, Richard Belzer, Martha and the Vandellas, Lydia Cornell, Cheryl Hines, Sharon Case, Davy Jones at the World Travel Awards Barbados





Too Close for Comfort Cast 2011

Lydia Cornell, Christopher Cerf of PBS Peabody Award-winning "Between the Lions" and Harvard Lampoon

Lydia Cornell, comedienne Nancy Jo Perdue




HALLOWEEN 2012:

Ouch that nail in my head hurts!! 
Kids at our door

I know, I look creepy

My Sarah Palin costume
More kids

This is freaking me out; do you see that mist to the right of the ghoul? 



190 comments:




  1. Well 3 weeks to go. Can't wait till its over and we don't have to hear about it anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  2. actually worf,

    it's two weeks to go.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Today is November 2. We vote on November 6.

    I wish it was 2 weeks from now.

    How is everyone back east?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did the storm help Obama or Romney? I know that the poetic justic of the storm is obvious: Obama has RIGHT on his side. Obviously, because he is not a liar.

    And it seems that Poetic Justice (the Universal Higher Power trying to get our attention to correct the wrongs) always seems to step in and slap the "evil-doers" down by pointing out their hypocricy every time.. in the nick of time. It happened with Mark Foley right before the election. And Ted Haggert and several other Republican gay haters who were living secret lives. They were revealed including Larry Craig.. it seems that a storm blows through each time the Source wants us to WAKE UP. We can't let a lying hypocrite win this election either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I posted that comment 3 weeks ago in another thread Clif, Lydia.

    I think you removed that thread and then redid it as a halloween theme so my comment must have come back with it. But yea, I said that like 3 weeks ago in a different thread. I didn't post that this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And yes. I can't help but notice the odd timing of this storm. One week earlier and people would be talking about something else right before the election.

    One week later, and it would have interrupted the election.

    But it came, exactly one week before the election, ...almost as if God himself were saying to people, "STOP LISTENING TO THE LIARS, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL".

    ReplyDelete
  7. And as if God, fate, Serendipity, whatever, ...wanted to make it clear what a President looks like who actually CARES.

    The storm was a disaster for us, but I also think it was a disaster for Mitt Romney and the Republicans.

    It put them in their place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Romney looked like a joke, trying to talk about it.

    And while the President was down in the devastation helping governors and mayors save lives, getting services out and doing his job, ....Paul Ryan took his kids "Trick-or-Treating".

    Sort of put it all in perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For Johnny...


    "..fate it would seem....is not without a sense of irony." - Morpheus

    ReplyDelete
  10. In November 2008, the country lost 803,000 jobs.

    How does that compare to the 171,000 jobs that were created last month?

    Would you say that we are better off than we were four years ago?


    Sounds like the epitaph of the R-money campaign to me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That mysterious mist above Lydia is obviously an "evil spirit" coming to haunt her unmercifully. If I were her I would be deathly afraid in that dark lonely house......better keep the lights on!!

    : |

    ReplyDelete
  12. "For Johnny...


    "..fate it would seem....is not without a sense of irony." - Morpheus"

    Yes,it would seem so in this case Worf thus I absolutely concur,but be careful, Matrix quotes make Cliffy white hot with anger.

    "It is, of course, the way of all things. You see, there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: Causality.
    Action,Reaction - Cause and effect.

    Causality,there is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the `why."


    BTW,based upon prior happenings it was pre-determined that I was going to write this comment.......I have no choice in the matter.......LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see you got that baby smoking again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Better get him on the patch if he wants to see 2.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "As US President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney returned to the campaign in the wake of Hurricane Sandy , new polls suggested a very close race though Obama appeared to have a very slight edge."


    Well,I hope this slight edge keeps up? The man who totally RIPPED Bin Ladens turban deserves to win again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. However,I cant get this quote from Thomas Jefferson out of my head:


    "Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

    ReplyDelete



  17. Yea, will fortunately the US ain't doing that. That we "promote the general welfare" and offer assistance to our people is in our benefit.

    While it costs a little in welfare, it saves TRILLIONS in other areas, such as the rampant crime a country would have as well the inevitable revolution that would follow aimed at such a government that would let its people starve.


    ReplyDelete
  18. Your apathetic "let them eat cake" mentality doesn't work.

    Starve 50 million people, and face an army of 50 million revolutionists.

    ReplyDelete


  19. Just ask your soul mate Marie Antoinette.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A country that cannot feed its poor, isn't worth a plugged nickel.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What puzzles me, is why you apathetic conservative types who hate the idea of feeding the poor, and who have such animosity towards them, pretty much labeling ALL of them or most of them as lazy, ....can't see the direct parallel to the mentality of the Nazi's towards them, as well as the sick and mentally challenged.

    Your ideologies parallel. They mirror each other. The Nazi's felt the same way about them.

    So I suppose you could decide to go all the way and just exterminate them. I'm sure Doltron wouldn't have a problem with that approach.

    Of course then the rest of us, ...which I'm sure are more, would have to do to them, and you if you joined them, what our fathers did the Nazi's when they tried it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I mean, we're not just going to stand by and watch the right wing rise up AGAIN, like they did in the 1930's Germany, and start killing old people, sick and mentally ill, the poor and foreigners, etc.

    But the right wing knows that so that's why they're kept in check.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Johnnymoomoo said...

    However,I cant get this quote from Thomas Jefferson out of my head:



    Don't let it get to you. Remember.



    "A great deal of what you read on the internet is not true"
    - Abraham Lincoln

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I have told you before, there's no escaping the nature of the universe. It is that nature that has again brought you to me. Where some see coincidence, I see consequence. Where others see chance, I see cost."

    Merovingian


    Well,Cliffy,I can assure you of one thing - a series or string of previous events(perhaps even years in the making) has led us both inexorably here.

    If we were to make one small change to just one miniscule prior event then one,or even both of us, might never have been led here.

    Certainly a string of built up prior events took place that would disallow even a small change to a miniscule previous happening thereby affecting the bigger picture???


    Causality will ensure that you will pick up your computer in such a specific physical manner so as to respond to my comment. Your left hand may even reach over to grab your coffee mug as you type your reaction to my action.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "To do is to be." - Plato


    "To be is to do." - Socrates


    "Scooby Dooby Doo" - Barney Rubble

    ReplyDelete
  26. mook mook weong as usual;

    never have drank bug shit disguised as a beverage.

    ReplyDelete
  27. While you're musing on the poignancy of my no doubt deep and moving quotes, I might point out Johnny, that your frequent use of Mervs quote there from the Matrix series doesn't do a whole lot for your whole "atheist" doctrine that this (the universe) and all the factors, forces and materials which are in it and those that caused its creation, are just one big coincidence.

    By your own Matrix quote, there must have been a creator.


    "Where some see coincidence, I see consequence".

    ReplyDelete
  28. Consequence is the result of action.


    And action is the result of an actor.

    ReplyDelete
  29. PS mook mook;

    Causality mandates an First Cause ........ thanks for totally undermining your atheism with your no longer hidden religiosity.

    Like I said;

    Causality is scientifically impossible to prove.

    Because in the end it is another system based on faith.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cue the Mook Mook coyote look

    as he realizes

    he ran off the cliff

    once again ........... as usual

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I can't vouch for his sheetrock skills, but he sure is good at painting himself into a corner.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Atheists like to hide behind the ole "Well that's the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg".

    But its not.


    Because its not a question of "which came first".

    Its a question of how could whichever the first one is, exist at all?

    ReplyDelete

  33. "Causality is scientifically impossible to prove."


    I know that Cliffy........I was just playing with you!

    However,it certainly is a thinker that freaks me out.

    Hard determinism vs. soft determinism?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Think about this Johnny.

    Where did the first sub atomic particle come from? Where did the energy that caused it to expand come from?

    What was the action that caused the reaction that created the energy?

    And whatever caused the action, that caused the reaction that created the energy, ...what caused that? And what was before that?

    How long in an always?

    How far is infinity?

    What's at the end of it?

    Those will make your head explode.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Science shows us that there must be something beyond our mortal understanding.

    Whatever you conclude, the universe created us, and we are intelligence.

    Therefore the universe created intelligence.

    So for the universe to create intelligence, then there must be intelligence in the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Somewhere, the seeds of intelligence, must be part of the fabric of the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, hath had elsewhere its setting, and cometh from afar.

    Not in entire forgetfulness, and not in utter nakedness, but trailing clouds of glory do we come, from God, who is our home."


    - Wordsworth

    ReplyDelete
  38. Funny how mook mook

    when confronted with

    painting himself in a corner,


    is ALWAYS


    ........I was just playing with you!

    He's serious until he is made to look foolish;

    then he's just joking .... really.



    Trust me

    he really really isn't as foolish

    as he usually looks here,

    he was just joking

    honest.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In shorter mook mook,

    he's a joker

    playin' the foole.

    ReplyDelete
  40. religiously at that it seems

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yea, it sounded like he tapped out on that one. I sure thought he was serious, and its something he's always pushed in here so suddenly he never meant it?

    Clif's right Johnny. Seems like a better option would have been just to admit you were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  42. LOL

    : D

    Oh,I can go on;for example what may seem scientifically impossible now may not be in 500 years time.

    If I remember correctly Einsteins theory of relativity says we can perhaps go forward in time but not backwards. However,I recently heard something on the news about some new discovery that challenges Einsteins theory.

    Now,if backward time travel were possible in the future then we would have the capability to examine causality far more effectively.

    Or do you guys 100% believe we have stopped advancing scientifically thus believing there is no more room for progression?

    BTW,I like how you guys want me to explain myself to your accusations..........LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Keep digging mook mook,

    you're kinda funny when you do

    ReplyDelete
  44. Cause here is the science required;

    Some outlandish solutions to Einstein's equations do suggest that traveling backward in time might be possible, but to do so could require about half the mass of the universe in energy, and would likely destroy the universe in the process.

    In other words we might be able to reverse time ONCE if we want to destroy the Universe.


    Like I said keep digging;

    you're real funny when ya do.

    ReplyDelete
  45. So NO time travel for us average humans is NOT scientifically possible;

    however keep he faith you showed there.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cliffy said:


    "There is NO reason from what we know of that black holes mucst be infinite or doomed"



    Cliffy,himself acknowledges the impossible right here by telling us that something is neither doomed or infinite........what else could it be then???

    This speculation far exceeds my assumption that causality could be a possibility based on the never-ending advancement of scientific research.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It is absurdity to suggest that science stops in the year 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Causality suggests that Cliffy will respond........LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  49. based on the never-ending advancement of scientific research.

    Which has been historically slowing down decade after decade.


    The height of scientific discovery was the years 1859-1950.

    Funny way to attempt to dodge the foolishness of your time travel claims there mook mook

    ReplyDelete
  50. Keep throwing all the crap ya can to see if anything sticks, or you can claim the foole again.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Causality suggests

    You mean it is a real being that can make suggestions

    or is it the uncaused cause???????

    ReplyDelete
  52. Keep preaching mook mook,

    you might be converting somebody to your belief system,

    just not me .......

    ReplyDelete
  53. BTW a sewing needle and a little thread,

    and you will be able,

    to stitch yer turban all together again.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I just got the new Unknown Hinson CD and he's lots funnier then ya will ever be mook mook;

    and lots better at that singing thing also;

    toodles.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Cliffy said

    "Toodles"

    No wonder he's running away,he doesn't want to answer this impossibility that he stands by:

    "There is NO reason from what we know of that black holes mucst be infinite or doomed"

    At least I stood my ground based on my belief that scientific advancement may produce mind-blowing evidence in the future.

    Sorry,Cliffy,it is you who needs a new turban. I have an old dusty one in my closet if you want it?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Infinite:

    1: extending indefinitely : endless

    2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible

    3: subject to no limitation or external determination

    4a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large

    b: extending to infinity

    c: characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms

    Black Holes being physical manifestations that exist with in limited spaces in the known Universe CANNOT be Infinite by any definition above.

    Also nothing with in physical science says that black holes are doomed.

    Especially super massive black holes at the center of galaxies.

    They might merge into ever larger black holes, but they are still black holes.


    Turban still in shreds mook mook.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Stick to time travel mook mook,

    ......theoretically if you want to destroy the Universe you might be able to go back and not post the foolishness you have here.


    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  58. Cliffy, acknowledges that time travel is possible at great cost.But, who says we wont be able to control such destruction or find ways around this conundrum in 5000 years time?

    Ya just never know?

    And, this is not about faith,it is about curiosity.........period!

    ReplyDelete
  59. who says we wont be able to control such destruction or find ways around this conundrum in 5000 years time?

    Humans able to control the mass of HALF of the entire Universe???????


    Really mook mook,

    that the BEST ya got???

    funny, I thought you'd have a better come back,

    but then again yer HOPING religiously that in 5000 years we MIGHT be able to do this.



    Turban still in tatters, and not getting any better.

    ReplyDelete
  60. If it was JUST curiosity

    ...... you would not be so dogmatic about it mook mook like you have been here.


    No yer back peddling as fast as ya can from the foolishness you spouted

    and hoping you can find the sewing kit in yer closet.

    ReplyDelete
  61. BTW stick to yer day job,

    yer comedy routine needs LOTS of work there.

    ReplyDelete
  62. almost as much work as yer turban needs at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Although extremely rare,I have absolutely dreamed very small snippets of the future which I only recall once I experience them for real.

    This mysterious phenomenon suggested to me that hard determinism does perhaps exist.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This mysterious phenomenon suggested to me that hard determinism does perhaps exist.

    An article of faith if I ever saw one.

    QED

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Really mook mook,

    that the BEST ya got???"

    Not really,your extremely narrow-minded view that mankind cannot possibly advance beyond the scope of today's science perplexes me.

    Grab a brain,Cliffy,and a new turban.....LOL!

    Hundreds of years ago,based upon the science of the time, people were executed for suggesting the Earth was round.













    ReplyDelete
  66. Actually,you may as well be pissing on Gene Roddenberry's grave.

    ReplyDelete
  67. OK,Cliffy,give me your address so I can mail you that dusty used turban...........LOL!

    Please wait patiently by your mailbox.

    ReplyDelete
  68. This is the very definition of a straw argument.


    Clif points out (as does most scientists) that time travel to the past would be impossible.

    Johnny responds by saying:

    It is absurdity to suggest that science stops in the year 2012.


    So we see the straw argument.

    Johnny falsely concludes that just because some science has changed over the years (some) therefore ALL science must change.

    Then responds to Clifs statement claiming that Clif is saying that all scientific knowledge must end in 2012.

    The anatomy of a straw argument, laid out.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Clif stating that time travel to the past is impossible, is NOT Clif stating that all science must end in 2012.

    But Johnny claims it does, thus making up a position for Clif, then ascribing to him, then proceeding to pretend to refute it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Same exact thing Voltron always does to me.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Rather than debate our positions, they change them, then proceed to debate the position that they themselves invent.

    Its a trademark of republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  72. your extremely narrow-minded view that mankind cannot possibly advance beyond the scope of today's science perplexes me.

    It is NOT narrow minded to think the human race will NEVER be able to manipulate half of the entirety of the universe to create enough energy to reverse time.

    Not narrow minded at all mook mook;

    juts realistic of the fact to use such energy we would have had to use MUCH more energy already creating the physical entity we would use to manipulate the half of the universe that actually didn't exist after we used more than half creating the physical entity ....

    If you cannot see the logical fallacy in your faith based ideas, yer in worse shape then I thought.

    Actually,you may as well be pissing on Gene Roddenberry's grave.

    Still stuck in a celluloid fictional reality eh mook mook??????

    ... actually read The Physics of Star Trek, Lawrence M. Krauss beat me to it.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Clif points out (as does most scientists) that time travel to the past would be impossible."

    WRONG!!!!! IT is possible (as Cliffy clearly admitted) but at great cost,however,his opinion is based upon the science of the time...........PERIOD!

    Hellllllllllooooooooooo!!!!!

    Did you not read my post about people being executed hundreds of years ago for suggesting that the Earth was round???

    Your turban is obliterated to Worf.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Action-Reaction is taking place right now......LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Mook Mook give it up;

    physically turning HALF the Universe

    into energy

    for a single

    one way

    trip to the past

    is IMPOSSIBLE

    especially for an extremely small physical entity

    as we are,

    compared to the immensity

    of half the Universe.

    If your too daft to understand that simple fact scientifically,


    your extremely daft


    Yes you can claim the "possibility" ...

    until you look at what you are actually proposing.

    the reality should seep in

    unless your too hooked

    on your fictional celluloid fantasies

    to ever allow reality in that is.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "It is NOT narrow minded to think the human race will NEVER be able to manipulate half of the entirety of the universe to create enough energy to reverse time."



    Yeah,and how do we not know that the universe we live in presently is simply a grain of sand on a beach which could easily be manipulated one day......LOL!!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Yeah,and how do we not know that the universe we live in presently is simply a grain of sand on a beach which could easily be manipulated one day......LOL!!

    Right, we have ONLY one known universe, so you are proposing burning half of it for a one way trip to the past, which we could NOT return from unless we burn half the universe back then negating the ability to burn the half to go back.

    Mook Mook put down the crack pipe, beer could never make anyone ^that^ stoopid.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The rest is faith based celluloid fantasy on your part, even if you REFUSE to acknowledge it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. If the human race could manipulate time in the past, then it could go back and destroy their own ability to manipulate time in the future, thus removing their ability to go back in time and destroy their ability to manipulate the past.

    See the problem?

    Watch the movie "the Time Machine" if this thought is elusive to you.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Cause NOW you are proposing we will find a way out of this universe that does not destroy the matter of our bodies, in order to destroy half the known universe for a one way trip to the past??????????



    crack on steroids dumb thinking there mook mook

    Remember the scientific discoveries are slowing down because each level of new discovery requires more and more energy to do, which is why atom accelerators are increasing in size and energy requirements.

    we will soon get to the point where we will need all the energy in the solar system to just run one, and still not be at the knowledge levels for controlling half the know Universe.

    We will consume the energy gaining the knowledge and not have any left for the trip.

    Bet that logic still evades ya eh mook mook.

    PS no energy for ANYTHING else;

    like living daily life that is.

    ReplyDelete
  81. In the modern version they address the paradox.

    The Time Traveler's motivation for making the machine is to go back in time and save his fiancee from being shot and killed.

    However each time he goes back she still dies, although in various ways.

    Finally he looks for the answer to the reason he cannot save her, in the future. And an evolved human explains it to him.

    If she hadn't been killed, he'd have never set out to invent a machine to go back and keep her from being killed. Hence she must be killed, for their to be a time machine.

    ReplyDelete
  82. A simpler more oft used example is Michael J Fox in "Back to the Future" when he goes back in time and ends up interfering with his father meeting his mother, which would mean he himself could never have existed.

    ReplyDelete


  83. So it would be impossible to do it because the very act of doing it could negate the existence of the world as we know it. So I think that's what Clifs saying and he's right. The paradox would be impassible.

    On the other hand, some scientists theorizing in multi-dimensional theory speculate that a new universe would be created with each trip to the past, thus we would visit the past once, but not be able to return as the future we'd return to would be changed by our presence in the past. So I'll give you that.

    To do it, we'd have to exceed the speed of light. In hypothesis if the speed of light could be exceeded then it might be possible we could go back in time but not return.

    Of course we couldn't return to the past from the future either, since our time in the area we were traveling at the speed of light would mean time on earth would accelerate beyond the lifespans of all those alive when we left.

    But I guess I see your point too. That in theory, if we could break known laws of the universe (nothing can travel faster than light for example), then the theoretical potential is there.

    There's an old saying that always sticks with me on this one.

    "If you could take a trip fast enough, you could be home before you leave".

    ReplyDelete
  84. Of course, even that law of the universe I suppose was broken once.

    During creation.

    Because during the plank epoch, immediately after the big bang, (the plank epoch is a period after the big bang that is inestimably small, less than fractions of a nanosecond) all matter, energy, light and even gravity repulsed out FASTER than the speed of light.

    So perhaps there is some potential for it, but again, we get back to the paradox. But IF multidimensional theory is correct, then even that I suppose could be overcome. So I'll give you that.

    ReplyDelete
  85. But you did make a straw argument with Clifs statement.

    ReplyDelete
  86. By the way, if you're confused why I say we'd have to exceed the speed of light, it would work like this.

    Time slows down as we "approach" the speed of light. We know this from not only Einstein, but from our own radio communications with the international space station (and with experiments done in the 60s with supersonic jets and atomic clocks).

    When we reach the speed of light, time would supposedly stand still (so if we were beings of light, we'd live forever).

    However IF we could exceed the speed of light somehow, then we could travel back in time.

    For example, we look at the sky and see light reaching us now that left the star millions of years ago.

    So when we look at the sky, we're looking back in time. We're seeing the stars, etc as they were years, hundreds of years, thousands of years, millions of years, etc, ago.

    So if we could point a ship at a star that was a million years old, traveling faster than the speed of light, then we could overtake the light coming at us in one direction and arrive at the star at the time the light actually left the star.

    We'd beat the light from the star and get to it before it left, thus we'd be back at the star, 1 million years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  87. But again, nothing can exceed the speed of light.

    During the plank epoch when everything was expanding outward faster than the speed of light, light also was expanding faster than the (current) speed of light. Hence the light was still moving beyond the object it was reflecting or emanating from.

    ReplyDelete
  88. So I still agree with Clif that it will never be possible to go back in time because I don't think we'd ever be able to exceed the speed of light.

    But I also will concede that you make a point, that there are theories out there that do at least allow for the concept.

    ReplyDelete
  89. But there are also theories that say that such energy required would exceed the mass of the universe, hence again, impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  90. It's definitely a fascinating thought though.

    One thing we may be able to do is look back in time, sort of.

    Think of this. As I said when we look at distant star we see the star as it was when the light left it that's just reaching our telescope.

    That period can be millions, even billions of years ago depending on the light gathering power of the scope.

    So we already look back in time now.

    We have photographs of the universe as it was when it was first created. That in and of itself is beyond mind boggling.

    But suppose we sent a ship out into space with a large telescope. Lets say we sent it out to where light from earth would take 50 years to reach the scope on the spaceship.

    Thus a person looking through that scope, would see the earth as it was when he left (but no further back).

    So if the scope was powerful enough, (like a keyhole satellite) then he could actually see himself as he was leaving earth.

    Pretty cool huh?

    ReplyDelete
  91. From Voltron's link.


    "But does this mean that we will be able to jump into H.G. Wells’ machine, spin a dial, and soar several hundred thousand years into England’s future? No. - Dr. Michio Kaku

    ReplyDelete
  92. So with regards to Voltron's popping here for Johnny, the question now is, ....did you come to praise Caesar, or bury him?

    ReplyDelete
  93. from dummytron link;

    First, the main problem is one of energy. In the same way that a car needs gasoline, a time machine needs to have fabulous amounts of energy. One either has to harness the power of a star, or to find something called “exotic” matter (which falls up, rather than down) or find a source of negative energy. (Physicists once thought that negative energy was impossible. But tiny amounts of negative energy have been experimentally verified for something called the Casimir effect, i.e. the energy created by two parallel plates). All of these are exceedingly difficult to obtain in large quantities, at least for several more centuries!

    we MUST do this with in one century.

    why you ask?

    well we all know that the fossil fuel industry claims we have about that much fossil fuel left for humanity's use.

    Then it is power down unless we find new unknown sources of energy or curtail the vast majority of humanity's energy use for the remaining few to use the available energy sources left for this type of scientific research.

    All of these are exceedingly difficult to obtain in large quantities, at least for several more centuries!

    Oops, according to dummytron's linky not gonna happen.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Of course then there is this;

    Then there is the problem of stability. The Kerr black hole, for example, may be unstable if one falls through it. Similarly, quantum effects may build up and destroy the wormhole before you enter it. Unfortunately, our mathematics is not powerful enough to answer the question of stability because you need a “theory of everything” which combines both quantum forces and gravity. At present, superstring theory is the leading candidate for such a theory (in fact, it is the ONLY candidate; it really has no rivals at all). But superstring theory, which happens to be my specialty, is still to difficult to solve completely. The theory is well-defined, but no one on earth is smart enough to solve it.

    we need to find a way to get to a Kerr style Black Hole IF they exist at all.

    remember we need to do this at the same time we are using our diminishing energy resources to find ways to harness amounts of energy that only exist on a stellar level not our planets level.

    with a worsening climate throwing things like Frankenstorms at all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "So by going back in time and altering the past, we merely create a parallel universe. So we are changing someone ELSE’s past"

    That's just what I said above;

    Worfy said...

    "On the other hand, some scientists theorizing in multi-dimensional theory speculate that a new universe would be created with each trip to the past, thus we would visit the past once, but not be able to return as the future we'd return to would be changed by our presence in the past."

    ReplyDelete
  96. So again, you're not going back in time, you're basically creating a new dimension, that's IF you could do it, which you can't.

    ReplyDelete
  97. the ability to discover ways of harnessing the prerequisite power, and then controlling it along with the need to invent the required technology to use such power, is in direct competition with simply surviving on a planet that doesn't have internal amounts of power to keep science going at the level;s necessary if the vast majority of humanity isn't doomed to a very severely tragic fate that is.

    Oh yea and that republican agenda to dumb most of America down enough to actually vote GOper.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "In conclusion, don’t turn someone away who knocks at your door one day and claims to be your future great-great-great grandchild. They may be right."

    ReplyDelete
  99. dummytron as usual posits a joke as science, instead of looking for REAL science.

    He totally ignored the gestalt of the demands for energy in the coming century which is the last one where fossil fuels will play any significant role in how the human race uses fossil fuels.

    and the role climate change will have in changing how we can use fossil fuels left,

    further science or change the way we use then to limit the damage climate change is already unleashing, let alone the very real damage that will be done in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Dummytron the number of greats that NUMEROUS centuries hinted at in the article should have been a hint the ending comment was at least tongue in cheek is not out right sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
  101. As usual comically challenged right winger missing the joke.

    ReplyDelete
  102. might be right,

    is sorta a faith based statement, not science dummytron.

    Might happen,

    scientifically near impossible

    and disastrous for anyone alive in the future time where the visitors came from that is.


    kinda went above yer intellect eh dummytron?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Funny, mook mook gets his turban ripped,

    reduced to playin' the foole even if he cannot fully acknowledge it;

    runs away claiming victory like he usually does;


    And up pops dummytron,

    predictable


    as predictable the dumb posts dummytron will use to try to buttress mook mook illogical position.

    He pushes a comment filled article NOT actual science.

    .. an article filled with maybes, caveats and qualifiers that no scientific article would accept as proofs.

    One that ends with a joke dummytron takes as science it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  104. dummytron, when mook mook is done with his sewing kit,

    ask him to borrow it,

    you need it.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Worf said

    "But again, nothing can exceed the speed of light."

    I once argued this myself until I was slapped in the face by an arrogant,much younger university student.

    My cheek is still red......LOL!


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/law-breaking-particle-at-cern-exceeds-the-speed-of-light/2011/09/22/gIQAOIzKoK_blog.html

    ReplyDelete
  106. still don't under stand the simple fundamentals of the levels of energy that are being discussed. and the time limits the human race has because of the declining energy environment and ecological dire situation we currently find ourselves in do ya dummytron?

    Everything you posted at your little list website is from a time when the energy requirements of humanity were easily met by the recourse at hand, which they are not now(hence the ever rising of prices even while actual usage drops.

    also the vast majority fall within the 1850-1950 time period I mentioned. The majority predate WW1 and the latest was 1980.

    not good if yer tryin' to say the greatest science of enormous energy days are ahead of us.




    no is a good time to email mook mook for his sewing kit.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Both Cliffy and Worf's turbans have been shredded into sub-atomic particles....period!!!

    I win!!!!!!!!!!

    I am "The One."

    And so is Voltron for keeping an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Cliffy,the Wikipedia expert............LOL!

    : D

    ReplyDelete
  109. Ummmm mook mook the washington post article from Posted at 03:31 PM ET, 09/22/2011 is wrong.

    Scientists reject startling claims that the speed of light has been broken for a second time




    they determined it was a equipment failure not faster then light travel;

    Breaking the speed of light: CERN's neutrino experiment

    Scientists at CERN have admitted an experiment that appeared to show neutrino particles could travel faster than light was potentially flawed due to a faulty cable.




    sew faster mook mook the turban is falling apart faster then yer fixin' it.

    do try to keep up with the current science.

    ReplyDelete
  110. mook mook do try to keep up with the times.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I understand that yer sewing so much lately you might not have time to read current articles, but at least you could have checked yer factiods before spouting off in such a foolish manner.

    ReplyDelete
  112. The speed of light has been broken pickle-heads as my link clearly shows.

    Trapping you guys is like taking candy from a baby............LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  113. yer #`1 all right;

    the flushable kind of #1 that is.

    ReplyDelete
  114. The speed of light has been broken pickle-heads as my link clearly shows.

    No it has NOT stoopid;

    the experiment was flawed by a faulty cable.


    ReplyDelete
  115. Unlike you two mooks, I don't panic and run straight into the slaughter house over agenda driven pop science.

    I DO however believe in REAL science.

    Your timeline is self imposed by your ideology. If and when fossil fuels run out new energy sources will be found. Some of them may be the ones you advocate for now, some maybe haven't even been thought of yet. We may one day have cold fusion. Geothermal is something not yet widely talked about. The progress in the last 100 years should give you a small idea of what the next may hold.

    Further, I have watched and listened to Dr. Kaku on TLC and Discovery channels, he's not a sarcastic man. His closing statement may have been "tongue in cheek", but I doubt it was a joke to him.

    Lastly, after much reading it seems to me the key is the speed of light. If space and time is curved, then obviously the way to the past is through the future.

    Granted the speed of light seems impossible to us now, but there are already physicists working on that problem. You can find the articles on your own. It's getting late and I'm tired.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Scientists did not break speed of light - it was a faulty wire

    Physicists who shocked the scientific world by claiming to have shown particles could move faster than the speed of light have admitted it was a mistake due to a faulty wire connection.

    It was Albert Einstein who proposed more than 100 years ago that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.

    Einstein’s theory of special relativity, proposed in 1905, states that nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

    But researchers at the CERN lab near Geneva claimed they had recorded neutrinos, a type of tiny particle, travelling faster than the barrier of 186,282 miles (299,792 kilometers) per second.

    Now it seems Einstein's reputation has been restored after a source close to the experiment told the US journal Science Insider that "A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame."

    Scientists at CERN claimed that neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier than the 2.3 milliseconds taken by light.

    The report in Science Insider said the "60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. "

    "After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed," it added.

    "Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis."

    (snip)


    Rather than measuring the time it took the neutrinos to travel from CERN to Gran Sasso the second experiment, known as ICARUS, monitored how much energy they had when they arrived.

    Tomasso Dorigo, a CERN physicist, wrote on the Scientific Blogging website that the ICARUS paper was "very simple and definitive."

    He said it showed "that the difference between the speed of neutrinos and the speed of light cannot be as large as that seen by OPERA, and is certainly smaller than that by three orders of magnitude, and compatible with zero."

    Prof Jim Al-Khalili, the University of Surrey, who threatened to eat his boxer shorts if the original OPERA result was proved right, said: "Usually we see this effect when particles go faster than light through transparent media like water, when light is considerably slowed down.

    "So these neutrinos should have been spraying out particles like electrons and photons in a similar way if they were going superluminal – and in the process would be losing energy.

    "But they seemed to have kept the energy they started from, which rules out faster-than-light travel."


    get it now mook mook?????

    ReplyDelete
  117. Your timeline is self imposed by your ideology. If and when fossil fuels run out new energy sources will be found.

    another faith based statement.

    No current energy source can compete pound for pound with the energy released with the chemical reaction of breaking a hydro carbon bond.

    None except for the extremely expensive and very limited nuclear reactions which are also doomed by limited resources.

    Fusion has always been 30 years in the future,
    '

    was true in the 1970's when I was in school learning about it and is still true 30 years later.

    ReplyDelete
  118. "the experiment was flawed by a faulty cable."

    This is even worse for your position Cliffy. Your infallible belief in today's science is provided by a bunch of morons who cannot connect a cable properly............LOL!


    ReplyDelete
  119. "No current energy source can compete pound for pound with the energy released with the chemical reaction of breaking a hydro carbon bond."

    ReplyDelete
  120. Remember to USE an energy resource we need to build out the infrastructure needed to exploit the energy resource.

    Nothing is actually under construction in the fusion realm commercially, nor for any viable alternate resource to compete with fossil fuels.


    keep dreaming and hoping, but nothing is actually on the drawing boards nor commercially in progress.

    so a quarter century is already gone because that is how long a energy source takes from first implementation to actual full usage,

    not lookin good there dummytron.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Your infallible belief in today's science

    Nice strawman there, mook mook;

    yer the one claiming science will over come all obstacles,

    I was the one claiming we don't even know the obstacles to over come.


    but keep being that dioshonest it show who you really are.

    ReplyDelete
  122. "No current energy source can compete pound for pound with the energy released with the chemical reaction of breaking a hydro carbon bond."

    A very true statement.

    BTW no alternate energy resource is being proposed nor pursued commercially viable to actually replace all the fossil fuels do today.

    Given a decade or two needed research and quarter century to build the necessary infrastructure AFTER the science is settles, we seem farther behind the eight ball then ya realize dummytron.

    Not lookin good for you faith based dreamers now is it?

    ReplyDelete
  123. I have to contest your statement Johnny. Cliffy's belief in science is NOT "infallible"...

    ReplyDelete
  124. BTW dummytron, tell mook mook to keep his sewing kit.

    after his last incredibly foolish series of posts he will need it for a long time to refurbish his tattered turban.

    just go buy yer own,

    faster fer ya,

    ReplyDelete
  125. Fans and Friends of Voltron said...

    "In conclusion, don’t turn someone away who knocks at your door one day and claims to be your future great-great-great grandchild. They may be right."

    He was being tongue in cheek.

    Throughout his entire article he discredits the notion.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I have to contest your statement Johnny. Cliffy's belief in science is NOT "infallible"...

    sorry dummytron;

    the claims of scientific infallibility here was YOU and mook mook, not me

    but then again we know how dishonest you are;


    claim a son you don't have

    then

    lying about three showers a day>>>>>>>>>>

    almost as an accomplished liar as R-money and lyin ryan are

    ReplyDelete
  127. "Because of the enormous amount of work done by theoretical physicists within the last 5 years or so, Hawking has since changed his mind, and now believes that time travel is possible (although not necessarily practical). (Furthermore, perhaps we are simply not very interesting to these tourists from the future. Anyone who can harness the power of a star would consider us to be very primitive. Imagine your friends coming across an ant hill. Would they bend down to the ants and give them trinkets, books, medicine, and power? Or would some of your friends have the strange urge to step on a few of them?)"

    That doesn't sound like he's discrediting it to me...

    ReplyDelete
  128. Fuck you Clif and the horse you rode in on.

    ReplyDelete
  129. You really are a disgusting vile piece of crap aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  130. believes that time travel is possible (although not necessarily practical)

    The relevant passage dummytron

    ReplyDelete
  131. it is possible you will stop LYING

    just not very real to expect it,

    like Steven Hawking doesn't expect to ever see time travel.

    ReplyDelete
  132. sorry but those were the lies you told dummytron


    not me.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Johnnymoomoo said

    I once argued this myself until I was slapped in the face by an arrogant,much younger university student.

    My cheek is still red......LOL!


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/law-breaking-particle-at-cern-exceeds-the-speed-of-light/2011/09/22/gIQAOIzKoK_blog.html


    Nope. You shouldn't use blogs as your source of science. You should vet them first at least.


    Scientists did not break speed of light - it was a faulty wire

    Physicists who shocked the scientific world by claiming to have shown particles could move faster than the speed of light have admitted it was a mistake due to a faulty wire connection.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9100009/Scientists-did-not-break-speed-of-light-it-was-a-faulty-wire.html

    ReplyDelete
  134. So, is your daughter doing the section 8 thing and sticking the taxpayers with the bill for training?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Gee Worf, welcome to the party.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Fans and Friends of Voltron said...


    Fuck you Clif and the horse you rode in on.


    What's that you said to me the other night Volty? Oh yea.

    You really should watch those "panic attacks".

    ReplyDelete
  137. BTW dummytron physcially according to quantum theory that ANYTHING is possible.


    Doesn't mean the probably is greater then ten to the negative infinity minus one for it.

    just that all possibilities need be accounted for scientifically no matter how impracticable in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  138. So, is your daughter doing the section 8 thing and sticking the taxpayers with the bill for training?

    No but then again she served in a combat zone;

    something your gutless arse was far to yellow to ever do.

    I seem to remember your claiming you were going to Iraq

    How'd that LIE turn out eh?

    ReplyDelete
  139. In order to travel back in time, without of course some magic black hole that is in reality a wormhole which of course is possible but what they left out was when matter, energy, light, gravity, etc is sucked in, it is stretched in an almost infinite manner and NOTHING, not even gravity would survive in its present state,....at least that's the general consensus.

    But for us to build some sort of time travel machine capable of moving BACKWARD in time, it would have to exceed the speed of light, and our bodies would have to be capable of withstanding that as well as would the materials of the vehicle.

    I wouldn't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  140. And then of course as Haku points out, it would not really be "our" past, but another dimension that would instantly be changed by our very presence there.

    So again, it wouldn't be possible.

    Because for it to be OUR (as in those of us existing in this time continum) past, then we couldn't be there.

    Our present day self could not be there, for it to be "OUR" past.

    ReplyDelete
  141. see dummytron the tax payers already got their money's worth from her YEAR actively serving in a combat zone, where tens of thousands of gutless chicken shit right wingers ran away from,


    she VOLUNTEERED for a second tour a year ago and received the necessary training,

    then this fall she found out she was pregnant with my first grand child


    military regs dictate no pregnant women in a combat zone so she still serves at her home station,

    nice of you to ask about my VERY real child dummytron.

    ReplyDelete

  142. NASA Actually Working on Faster-than-Light Warp Drive


    "In a paper titled “The Warp Drive: Hyper-fast travel within general relativity” published in science journal Classical and Quantum Gravity in May 1994, physicist Miguel Alcubierre suggested a mechanism for getting an object from one point to another at faster-than-light speeds without running afoul of Einsteinian relativity.


    http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/#ixzz2BDplFj8J



    Hmmmmmmm.........it would seem that the very people t you place 100% faith in regarding global warming also have faith in exxceeding the speed of light...........LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  143. why is it every time you post about the lies dummytron posts here his panties get in such a twist?????

    ReplyDelete
  144. May 1994


    Hmmmm

    It is NOW Nov 2012.

    seems not to have worked out too well eh mook mook?

    ReplyDelete
  145. Or maybe it is NASA's version of Fusion.

    always possible in the near future if we could ever get a time machine to get there.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Uhhhhhhh.....Cliffy,the date on that is September 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Yes mook mook but they certainly haven't done anything but hypothesise since 1994 have they.

    No working prototype, no real PHYSICAL work at all,

    just a theory.

    ReplyDelete
  148. You posts seem a little desperate clinging to the hope that science might work out something that fiction says is possible.

    with NO concrete examples to show for it mook mook,

    keep the faith though it might be possible someday in the far off future before the sun goes red giant and swallows planet earth in 3-5 billion years.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Couldn't help but notice that you ignored Volt's comment whereby Hawking agrees that time travel is possible.

    Imagine 5000 years from now??

    : D

    ReplyDelete
  150. Johnnymoomoo said...



    Hmmmmmmm.........it would seem that the very people t you place 100% faith in regarding global warming also have faith in exxceeding the speed of light...........LOL!



    Actually you didn't read the article or either that don't understand it.

    This is not a ship that would travel faster than light speed within our universe.

    In fact it wouldn't travel faster than light speed at all.

    What they are working on is warping spacetime to permit a ship to reach a destination WITHOUT actually traveling there.

    At no time would the vehicle exceed the speed of light. Its like folding a blanket over to bring a corner of it nearer to your hand.

    Verstehen Sie?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Very well Cliffy you stick by today's science while the rest of us (including NASA) advance.........LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  152. So this doesn't help your position one bit. In fact it isn't even applicable.

    Because this ship would never actually move during the "warp drive".

    What it would do is travel at conventional speeds to a point in space where it was far enough out to not hurt us, then literally fold spacetime back on itself, bringing the destination within traveling distance to it.

    Do you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  153. During the Warp phase, the ship itself wouldn't even be moving.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Couldn't help but notice that you ignored Volt's comment whereby Hawking agrees that time travel is possible.


    No mook mook I commented on it;

    clif said...

    believes that time travel is possible (although not necessarily practical)

    The relevant passage dummytron

    8:41 PM


    That reading challenged or just more dishonesty?

    ReplyDelete
  155. So it would never "exceed the speed of light".

    But it could reach locations faster than it would take to reach them traveling at light speed.

    But it would not actually travel at faster than the speed of light.

    Hence, it could not take you back in time.

    ReplyDelete
  156. rest of us (including NASA) advance.

    and yet NO actual advancement has been made.

    More hope and faith from Mook mook here.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Actually you are right Worf,but we would be out-maneuvering the speed of light.

    ReplyDelete
  158. See mook mook clinging to fictional ideas, with NO real world applications and examples do not advancement make, no matter how much you cling to your celluloid based reality, that doesn't exist in the real world the rest of us exist in.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Are you hearing me Johnny?

    That point is discredited.

    NASA is NOT working on something that will travel faster than the speed of light.

    That was just the author of that articles "SPIN" on it to get you to read it.

    The ship itself would NOT travel faster than lightspeed.

    In fact it wouldn't move at all.

    ReplyDelete


  160. And no it doesn't circumvent Einsteins theory. Because it doesn't travel at the speed of light.

    What it does is create a way for it to "get somewhere" faster than you could get there travelling at light speed, but it doesn't actually move faster than lightspeed.

    ReplyDelete
  161. So Einsteins principle is intact.

    It cannot travel faster than light speed.

    Folding spacetime back on itself is something completely different.

    ReplyDelete
  162. we would be out-maneuvering the speed of light.

    No we wouldn't.

    If we warp space everything in that space would HAVE to be warped along with the ship. The photons included.

    Nothing outmanuevered, but then again since it is still all theoretical speculation with NO real world applications you can claim anything is possible but have no proof of anything at all eh mook mook

    ReplyDelete
  163. Johnnymoomoo said...

    Actually you are right Worf,but we would be out-maneuvering the speed of light.


    Yes, its bypassing travel, but its not moving faster than lightspeed so Einsteins principle still stands which means you can't go back in time, because folding spacetime wouldn't bring the past closer, it would simply bring the present closer.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Seriously,I'm like total toast,nevertheless I do believe that one day science will advance us to unbelievable imaginings.

    Good night gentlemen.

    ReplyDelete
  165. If you warp space to move the ship closer to it's destination, you also move the photons in that space closer as well. which in a way INCREASES the speed of light for that particular section of space. Because the photons also got to their destination faster then normal.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Seriously,I'm like total toast,nevertheless I do believe that one day science will advance us to unbelievable imaginings.

    Once again with the faith based statements,

    good night mook mook

    ReplyDelete
  167. Not really. Its more akin to bring that part of space, closer to your location while moving your space closer to that location. Thus cutting the time in half if based on light speed.

    Dr. Haku's talked about this on one of his shows I watch sometimes and he likens it folding a blanket over.

    In order to go back in time we'd have to travel to a location, faster than the light from that location reaches us. Then we could arrive at that location, before the light reaching us left. But in folding spacetime we're just bringing the present to the present. So we're not actually moving. We're just riding the fold.

    ReplyDelete
  168. But I agree that if we could take a trip fast enough we could be home before we ever left.

    Problem is, once we got there it would not be the same home we left since there would be our current self there, and our current self wasn't there when we left.

    ReplyDelete
  169. So your original comment to Johnny that traveling back in time is impossible is correct.

    Because even if you could, once you got there it wouldn't be the same place you left. Because your current self would be there.

    ReplyDelete
  170. It would then be a different time continuum than the one you left.

    ReplyDelete
  171. See the problem with space warping is space isn't empty, it contains few atoms per cubic meter, BUT lots of particles moving at or near light speed.

    Any particle that doesn't interact with gravity has to travel at the speed of light.

    Light photons, neutrinos cosmic rays gamma rays all exist all through out space, so when space is warped the continuum must be sustained otherwise we have a rip in the space-time continuum. as is everything co-existent with said ship would by necessity be carried along said warp. The ship brings it's immediate space-time continuum along with it if it does not rip itself outside space-time. Hence my statement.

    The theory is warping of space which is properly a space-time continuum. everything in front contracted in back expanded to move the ship closer to the location of it's destination. with no way to separate itself from it's local immediate space-time everything immediate to it's location mush be brought along. The continuum must be maintained even if warped.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Interesting. I see what you're getting at.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Well this certainly has been one of our more interesting and enjoyable discussions.


    Aside from Voltron's no doubt alcohol induced overtly profane rant along with his slurs and smears to Clif's daughters military service to our country.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Other than that I think I seriously enjoyed myself.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Interesting to me also which is why I came back,

    dummytron is just who he has always been,

    I never expect any thing else from him.

    mook mook seems to be trying.


    night

    ReplyDelete
  176. If he wants to bring my boy into it then his daughters fair game too.

    I've never met a more vile and hateful person than Clif. He's pure evil trying to cloak himself in self righteousness.

    A hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Then try looking in a mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Waaaaaaah

    call the whambulance dummytron;

    you have no son

    you already admitted as such.

    You lied about that and the three showers a day post was to slime Muslims living in Europe;

    like your lie about going to Iraq.


    Puff who you are with lies because obviously the truth of who you are disgusts you on some level.

    ReplyDelete
  179. As for Clif, the guy served his country in a war. So has his daughter.

    What have you done other than ridicule both their service.

    Its one thing to attack Clif for things you don't like that he says.

    But its another thing to attack his service and the service of his kid.

    I attack what John McCain says, but you I always respected his service in here.



    ReplyDelete
  180. And as for the hate you claim he's filled with, if you read his posts clearly he does hate the evil you spew in here.

    Like when you talk about mass genocide, creating your own "Muslim Holocaust", your CONSTANT racial slurs against blacks, your attacks on Lydia, your constant lying.....shall I go on?

    ReplyDelete
  181. If you haven't figured out Clif yet, he's a fighter. Guys like him fight evil.

    He went and fought that evil bastard Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait and pushed him back into his hole.

    And he fights you when you come in and try to spread your Tea Party doctrines of racial intolerance, white supremacy, anti science where you fight against global warming science and progress in the field of new renewable energy, etc.

    Its in his blood. You can't get away from it. Soldiers fight against evil when they see it.

    ReplyDelete
  182. That's why you hate him. Because he stands up to you. He's not afraid of you or your tea party crew. And guys like him aren't going to cut you slack like "civy's" like me might.

    A soldier who sees you people for what you are, ...like PAT TILLMAN did for example, won't cut you any slack. Ever.

    Because they know your sort, and they know the damage you can do.

    ReplyDelete
  183. The only difference between the Tea Party "Christian Right" and the Taliban, is the Taliban has better hats.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Anonymous8:07 AM

    what is going on with this blog? There were like 40 comments in the new post and then it disappeared and now its like one long messed up article and our comments are all gone.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Anonymous9:28 AM

    buy valium valium dosage toddlers - valium pills buy

    ReplyDelete